Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doublefuck programming language
This article seems totally non-notable. About 50 google results, and about 6 not related to Wikipedia. It would appear the only information there is (or could possibly ever be) about this language is: "It's Brainfuck but with two buffers, see Brainfuck for more information."
Note that this was apparently listed on VfD in late September/early August 2004, but I could find no record of its discussion.CXI 16:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 16:10, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Fredrik | talk 16:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to brainfuck. Yelyos 16:13, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect. Grue 16:34, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Strong Keep and a strong censure to the people who keep putting esoteric programming languages up for vfd. What next, delete Fermat's Last Theorem because the poor guy didn't have enough space in his margin? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 16:37, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- But hey? Making an arbitrary programming language is much easier than coming up with a non-obvious right statement. Wow, I invented the new language: TRIPLEFUCK! It has three memory areas! I r t3h l337z0r3st! Grue 18:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep brainfuck is big enough as it is. Add a link to it from brainfuck, and leave it where it is. — マイケル ₪ 18:18, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Unsure. I mean, if it were my decision I'd either delete (noting that despite earlier debates there are still no sources or references cited for doublefuck) or more likely merge and redirect (merging the fact that different opcodes are used and deleting as unencyclopedic exactly what these are). The only attraction I can see for this article is that it gives another opportunity to use naughty words. I think it's good to document and keep this discussion if the article is kept, and harmless to delete the article but unlikely to happen. So no censures, and no vote from me. Andrewa 20:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)